Whitehurst v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Whitehurst, No. 2:21-cv-01986-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 On July 2, 2021, plaintiff Tammy Whitehurst filed this slip-and-fall lawsuit against Dollar 18 | Tree Stores, Inc. (Dollar Tree) in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Shasta. 19 | See generally Compl. Not. Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1-1. Dollar Tree timely removed to this 20 | court on October 26, 2021, invoking this court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Not. Removal 4 1, 21 | ECF No. 1. On February 1, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation in which plaintiff agreed to 22 | cap her total recovery at $74,999.99. See Joint Stip. § 6, ECF No. 7. The parties then “agree[d] 23 | that because the amount in controversy in this matter no longer exceeds $75,000.00, subject 24 | matter jurisdiction is lacking,” id. § 10, and the case should be remanded, id. ¥ 11. 25 The court disagrees. Jurisdiction must be analyzed based on the pleadings on file at the 26 | time of removal. See Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 27 | 1213 (9th Cir. 1998). “[P]ost-removal amendments to the pleadings cannot affect whether a case 28 | is removable, because the propriety of removal is determined solely on the basis of the pleadings 1 filed in state court.” Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006). The 2 Supreme Court, in St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., held that “events occurring 3 subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable, whether beyond the plaintiff's 4 control or the result of his volition, do not oust the district court's jurisdiction once it has 5 attached.” 303 U.S. 283, 293 (1938). In this case, plaintiff has now agreed to cap her damages at 6 $74,999.99, and the parties request that the case be remanded on that ground. See generally Joint 7 Stip. But the joint stipulation was filed more than three months after Dollar Tree removed the 8 matter to this court. See id. at 4. Thus, because the court is limited to reviewing the pleadings on 9 file in state court at the time the case was removed, the parties’ post-removal damages cap cannot 10 divest this court of jurisdiction. Cf. Guglielmino v. Mckee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 705 (9th 11 Cir. 2007) (noting “party might file a binding stipulation, prior to removal, that it will not seek 12 more in recovery than the jurisdictional threshold”). 13 There is, however, one exception to this rule. While a plaintiff may not defeat diversity 14 jurisdiction by using a stipulation to reduce or change her demand for damages, see St. Paul 15 Mercury, 303 U.S. at 293, a post-removal stipulation may show the absence of jurisdiction if it 16 clarifies the preexisting amount in controversy, see Gillette v. Peerless Ins. Co., No. 13-03161, 17 2013 WL 3983872, *3–4 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2013). In other words, a post-removal stipulation 18 demonstrating that the amount in controversy was $75,000 or less at the time of removal may be 19 sufficient to show lack of jurisdiction. 20 That is not the case here. The parties’ joint stipulation reads like a clear compromise: 21 Dollar Tree agrees to remand this case if plaintiff agrees to cap her damages. See, e.g., Joint Stip. 22 ¶ 7 (agreeing that plaintiff waives her right to collect any portion of a judgment or award that 23 exceeds $74,999.99); id. ¶ 10 (“The parties hereby agree that because the amount in controversy 24 in this matter no longer exceeds $75,000, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking” (emphasis 25 added)); id. ¶ 11 (“The parties further agree that in light of their agreement to cap Plaintiff’s total 26 recovery at $74,999.99, the matter should be remanded . . . .”). There is nothing in the joint 27 stipulation that can be interpreted as plaintiff’s simply clarifying the pre-removal amount in 28 controversy. Accordingly, the parties’ request that this case be remanded to state court is denied. 1 This order resolves ECF No. 7. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: February 14, 2022.